« Casualty Count | Main | Why So Mad? »
Segregated Prisons?
I'd scanned a few headlines about some sort of Supreme Court case regarding segregated prisons in California, but didn't actually read the articles. Having now read Julie Saltman and Jeralyn Merrit on the case, it's clear that's not what was going on. Instead what we had was "an unwritten California policy requiring officials to automatically bunk inmates by race for the first 60 days after their arrival. After an evaluation for dangerousness, inmates are then assigned to a permanent cell on a nonracial basis." That's pretty different. California prison officials feel that this helps control violence in prisons. The Supreme Court didn't strike the law down, but did demand that lower courts apply the almost-always-deadly "strict scrutiny" to the policy.
One could, however, certainly conceive of this policy actually meeting that demanding standard. If this really is vital to maintaining order in prison (of course you would have to explain why it's not vital in other states; something about prison gangs, maybe) that would seem, as Jeralyn says, to be a reasonably "compelling." The segregation in question here is rather mild and I think pretty obviously not intended to disadvantage or stigmatize anyone in particular. But there's a whopping empirical issue lurking at the heart of the case -- how much violence does this really prevent and is there some other way the reductions in question could be achieved? -- that I certainly can't resolve.
February 24, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83463b51c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Segregated Prisons?:
Comments
You wouldn't have to explain why other states don't do the same thing. But you would have to prove that
a. Curbing prison violence is vital
b. Racial integration in a prison stay is tightly connected to prison violence (and we know this, not merely assume it)
c. The segregation is narrowly tailored to achieve the vital objective of curbing prison violence (here, the fact that they limit the segregation to a set time period helps CA)
Posted by: bobo brooks | Feb 24, 2005 12:38:11 AM
Off the bat I have to wonder if it doesn't lead to an enforced balkanization---strengthening gang ties in the long run. People who might otherwise be willing to socialize with other races might be less inclined to do so after their initial group-identity in the prison was formed solely around their race.
Our criminal-justice systems seems so beyond repair most days, though, that worrying about even the most whopping empirical issues seems kind of luxurious though.
Posted by: Saheli | Feb 24, 2005 12:39:18 AM
I doubt that 60 days of segregation will make a non-racist prisoner into a racist.
Nor will forcing a gang-banger to associate with other races make him less racist.
Read Nicholas Stx's analysis of this problem.
If this winfs up leading to an increase in rapes, expect white prisoners to start joining Neo-Nazi groups in large numbers as a means of protection, increasing the racial divide:
"In an irony that is likely lost on Justice Stevens, the only white male prisoners who are reasonably safe [in prison] are the ultraviolent, neo-Nazi sociopaths who are members of white supremacist gangs. The white gang members protect each other."
Posted by: Glaivester | Feb 24, 2005 12:45:33 AM
What the liberals fail to realize is that racism is not something that has to be learned. It is a natural, primal drive that has to be supressed as part of the process of civilization. As a large percentage of criminals are that way because they have not developed good impulse control, it is a safe bet that a lot larger percentage of them will be racist or will be willing to commit racially-motivated violence than in the general population because they have poor control over primitive "us vs. them" impulses. so in prison, we must deal with that reality.
Forming race-based gangs in prison is not due simply to external factors, but due to a primitive urge to stick with otehr members of your family or clan (which is what race ultimately amounts to; an extremely extended family or clan).
Definitely we should make certain that 60-day segregation is an effective approach, but it should not be eliminated just to serve political correctness.
Posted by: Glaivester | Feb 24, 2005 12:52:06 AM
It wouldn't be hard to demonstrate that this denies prisoners equal protection. The argument, by the state, that it can't ensure prisoners' safety without racial discrimination would certainly be frowned on by the courts, if not provoke civil suits on the basis of such an argument.
But this is all shameful grad student musings, Matt; the prison system in the United States is a moral error almost on the scale of slavery. Marijuana USERS in jail while tobacco and alcohol KINGPINS roam the streets with guns? That's early 21st century America. But, the eternal optimist (a spotless mind being that salutary) I believe it won't be the case in America when this century closes.
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 24, 2005 1:07:40 AM
glaivester:
I may not be a liberal, but some of my best friends are, and I think they would want you to know that what conservatives don't realize is that it's not racial identity that is the problem in crime, but those, of any race, that are so undersocialized that they put themselves over the common good.
You may think that it is selfishness that powers our capitalist society, but it is the mortification of selfishness that is our strength. United we stand.
Selfishnes and racism don't need to be learned, they need to be unlearned.
You may think that pointing to racial similarites between me and you will save you from solipsistic uniqueness and loneliness; it doesn't. There is you, and there is everything external to your mind. The differences between a black and a white person is nothing compared to the difference between you and anyone, black or white.
Your problem isn't with other races. It is with other people.Consider: our comfort with ourselves compared to our comfort with other people vs. our comfort with our race vs. our comfort with other races. There is no comparison, the former case is FAR more stark a contrast. Black and white people, even your own family members, are just sense impressions to you, compared to the uniqueness of your own consciousness. In other words, compared to the difference between you and others of your race, there are only trivial and unimportant differences between the races.
Either you are unique and apart from everyone who is not you, or you share humanity in equal part with all the races. Yes we fear what is different from us. And every stranger, white or black. Only the familiar seems safe, and statistics tell us we are likely deceiving ourselves that we are safer with those like us than those who aren't. Join the human race, Glaivester, or declare yourself apart, but spare us your lame attempts to make scientific your racial politics. Trust me, you have nothing to teach the liberals or anyone else on this. You just expose yourself.
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 24, 2005 1:42:13 AM
In Cali the prison population is overwhelmingly Latino, and the various North and South Latin gangs run the jails, putting a newly incarcerated black/asian/white prisoners in a situation where they are basically one against everybody means they will get messed up. Ethnic gangs that exist outside of the jail dictate prison hierarchy here. They are competitive, intermixing inside jail is not going to increase tolerance for each other but increase friction for the most part.
Posted by: Glad | Feb 24, 2005 1:48:14 AM
Glaivester:
but it should not be eliminated just to serve political correctness
The political correctness you refer to is the idea of making justice colorblind. So am I to assume you are also against the political correctness of some conservatives in insisting on colorblindness in college admissions, etc.? That is, you also deride attacks on affirmative action as political correctness?
Racial decisions for a higher good: right or wrong Glaivester?
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 24, 2005 1:49:11 AM
Prisons are immoral. This is tantamount to a discussion of whether slaveowners should keep their slaves segregated sexually or not.
I mean, if the women slaves you are using for field hands (not for breeding) keep getting raped, then it is demonstrably wrong to keep the sexes together, isn't it Glaviester? I mean, its just logical. We didn't create the system, did we?
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 24, 2005 1:53:04 AM
glaviester:
Pwnz0r3d!!!11
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 24, 2005 2:08:42 AM
Okay, let's explain a few things here:
First, I don't advocate selfishness. I advocate individual rights and capitalism because I believe that these force selfish people to help others if they want to satisfy their selfishness, not because I see selfishness as a good thing.
I don't advocate unequal treatment for white and black offenders.
I just believe that for violent criminals it is a good idea to make certain that they aren't prone to committing racially-motivated violence before putting them into the gneral prison population.
I agree that racism needs to be unlearned; that was my point. Racism is a natural primitive instinct, it needs to be conquered to form civilization. Simply trying to force people together will cause more racial tensions, not eliminate the underlying problem.
Another point is that violent criminals tend to be rather primitive in their thinking. While teaching racial tolerance is good, to do so by forcing violent people together in a stressful, unfree situation like a prison os a recipe for problems.
Posted by: Glaivester | Feb 24, 2005 2:45:58 AM
Actually, epistemology, I would like to see an overhaul of our prison systems. I would like to see people taking prison rape seriously rather than thinking, "hey, they are only criminals. Who cares what happens?"
I would like to see more emphasis on "de-violencizing" criminals rather than toughening them.
While I don't see prisons per se as immoral, I'd like to see a lot of reforms to make them punitive but not hellhole-ish, because being prisons being hellhole-ish is immoral.
As for the discussion of segregating female slaves from male slaves: ultimately, we should fight to end slavery. But in the meantime, if sexual segregationg prevented rapes, it would probably be a good idea. I'm not going to say "do nothing" because I can't reform the entire system right away.
Posted by: Glaivester | Feb 24, 2005 2:51:36 AM
"So am I to assume you are also against the political correctness of some conservatives in insisting on colorblindness in college admissions, etc.? That is, you also deride attacks on affirmative action as political correctness?"
If a private organization wants to use affirmative action, it should be their choice.
Posted by: Glaivester | Feb 24, 2005 2:54:52 AM
This is stupid, we don't have a racial gang problem in our prisons, we have a gang problem in our prisons, and it really doesn't matter what lines the gangs break down along.
I'd seriously propose a radical solution to the whole problem of inmate on inmate violence: Lock them in separate cells for the duration of their sentances, without any opportunity for physical human contact. They can be provided enough social interaction through tapped and recorded video phones, or something along those lines.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Feb 24, 2005 7:04:48 AM
With enough evidence I could be convinced that such a policy were necessary, but I think you're understating the degree to which this kind of segregation matters. 60 days is long enough to lead to longer term balkanization.
Posted by: Atrios | Feb 24, 2005 8:22:18 AM
There are literally millions of Americans kept behind bars in degrading conditions for non violent crimes. Can we at least agree that brutalizing our fellow citizens for non violent crimes with the violence of prison and then letting them out to rejoin society, is going to end badly?
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 24, 2005 8:42:23 AM
Our current justice system is based on antiquated notions of free will and revenge. We could acieve a better level of social control and a more peaceful and productive society with only thousands, not millions of people in prison.
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 24, 2005 8:51:57 AM
Brett: it's already been established that inmates have a constitutional right to some form of weekly exercise. If you feel strongly enough about it, perhaps you should seek out a public interest plaintiff and try and get that awful precedent overruled. Also, I hear that prison conditions are going to be getting a lot of attention this year...
Posted by: fnook | Feb 24, 2005 8:56:40 AM
What? You have to be able to touch somebody else in order to get exercise? Drop a Boflex in the cell, if the dude is too stupid to figure out how to do situps.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Feb 24, 2005 9:06:09 AM
Glaviester says:
segregation is an effective approach, but it should not be eliminated [in prisons] just to serve political correctness
and:
If a private organization wants to use affirmative action, it should be their choice
From this we can gather that he thinks prisons are private organizations. You know, probably owned by the residents.
Posted by: epistemology | Feb 24, 2005 9:09:56 AM
For more on the desirability of private prisons go see Randy Barnett's Structure of Liberty. He thinks they're a good idea. I think he's whacked.
Posted by: fnook | Feb 24, 2005 9:30:25 AM
The important point here is that the policy has to be narrowly tailored to accomplish the compelling state interest. Cali would have to show that there is no other way to stop gang violence in prisons that doesn't make racial classifications.
Posted by: JDS | Feb 24, 2005 9:40:22 AM
Yeah, it's like a co-op apartment with stark, modern decor.
Posted by: bobo brooks | Feb 24, 2005 9:47:16 AM
Unfortunately, we are a people in the process of our own undoing. The underlying reason for this seems to be that we elect our leaders then hand them way too much control without adequate accountability. It is not their fault either It's human nature that many people with nearly unlimited power will abuse it eventually. It is up to the citizens to be accountable enough to demand accountability from our chosen representatives. We were handed the most excellent framework in our Constitution, Bill of Rights and generally the theoretical rule of law, over two centuries ago. Just like a house would crumble without consisten and diligent upkeep, so goes our democracy. What is happening in this case is just a symptom of this larger problem. When we declare a War on Drugs, we will be holding prisoners of war. Didn't we know that? We have actually declared a war on our citizens. We were asleep at the wheel. Our laziness let us elect people slick enough to scare the crap out of us, then run on "tough on crime" nonsense. Then they made us the criminals. Who loses? Again, this is but one symptom. Look around. (end rant)
Posted by: wishful | Feb 24, 2005 10:09:13 AM
Join the human race, Glaivester, or declare yourself apart, but spare us your lame attempts to make scientific your racial politics.
Actually, I recall reading a cog. psych paper as an undergrad that correlated the ability to discriminate between faces of people from a different race with exposure to members of that race. The Archie Bunker trope "they all look alike to me!" may have a biological component -- the brain must be trained to tell individuals apart. This shouldn't be too surprising given the extensive and fairly well-investigated neural circuitry we all have devoted to identifying faces (see Sacks' book describing prosopagnosia for the most famous example).
So jumping all over Glaivester is a lousy thing to do. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suggest that racism may be a "natural" social artifact, well-meaning NBC PSAs notwithstanding. The only folks who should be disturbed by that idea are fools who conflate "natural" and "good". Give me Hobbes any day.
Posted by: tom | Feb 24, 2005 10:09:14 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.